Learning in the educational landscapes of juggling, unicycling and dancing

(1)

Full Terms & Conditions of access and use can be found at

https://www.tandfonline.com/action/journalInformation?journalCode=cpes20 ISSN: (Print) (Online) Journal homepage: https://www.tandfonline.com/loi/cpes20

Learning in the educational landscapes of juggling,

unicycling, and dancing

G. Nyberg , D. Barker & H. Larsson

To cite this article: G. Nyberg , D. Barker & H. Larsson (2021): Learning in the educational landscapes of juggling, unicycling, and dancing, Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy, DOI: 10.1080/17408989.2021.1886265

To link to this article: https://doi.org/10.1080/17408989.2021.1886265

Published online: 17 Feb 2021.

Submit your article to this journal

Article views: 78

View related articles

(2)

Learning in the educational landscapes of juggling, unicycling,

and dancing

G. Nyberga, D. Barker band H. Larsson c

a

School of Education, Health and Social Sciences, University of Dalarna, Falun, Sweden;bSchool of Health Sciences, University of Örebro, Örebro, Sweden;cThe Swedish School of Sport and Health Sciences (GIH), Stockholm, Sweden

ABSTRACT

Background: Movement learning has been thoroughly investigated in the area of motor learning research. Although existing studies have contributed to a substantial understanding of motor learning, many have been criticized for their reliance on experimental designs where learning is decontextualized, simplified, and investigated in laboratory settings. Researchers have claimed that motor learning theories emanating from such studies are grounded on a dualistic approach to learning and that the theories are often difficult to apply in educational settings. More pedagogically-inspired studies of movement education have investigated movement learning, but the majority of this research has focused on teaching. This focus has left the process of learning somewhat unexplored. There is thus a need for empirical studies that investigate students’ learning processes in educational contexts. Purpose: The aim of this study is to explore, analyze, and understand how learners develop their movement capability when they are provided opportunities to choose different ways of learning activities.

Theory and method: We combine Ryle’s and Polanyi’s ideas concerning practical knowledge with Hirst’s and Carlgren’s idea of knowing as familiarity with a landscape. Ryle’s notion of ‘intelligent practice’ is used in thinking of the kinds of actions individuals might engage in. Characterizing features of intelligent practice includes being sensitive to one’s own actions, changing one’s behavior as the result of mistakes, and profiting from the examples of others. We understand the development of movement capability as continuously expanding one’s ability to discern nuances and their relationships. This perspective fits well with Polanyi’s notion of focal and subsidiary awareness. Taken together Ryle’s, Polanyi’s, Hirst’s, and Carlgren’s notions related to knowing and learning inform our perspective on learning in movement education. Based on this perspective on knowing and learning, an action-oriented study was conducted. The researchers created pedagogical modules and collaborated with teachers and university educators to develop learning sequences in line with the needs of their respective groups. With each group, we produced data based on video andfield notes. Three successful learners were chosen and followed in-depth with regard to their learning actions.

Findings: The ﬁndings show the learners’ varying ways of exploring a movement landscape as playing around in the terrain; checking the map; investigating one chosen path; occupying the vantage point;

ARTICLE HISTORY

Received 1 June 2020 Accepted 21 July 2020

KEYWORDS

Movement learning; practical knowledge; movement landscapes; oscillating

This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/

), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited.

CONTACT Gunn Nyberg gny@du.se School of Education, Health and Social Sciences, University of Dalarna, Trappstigen 12, Falun 791 37, Sweden

(3)

imitating and actively observing. The ﬁndings suggest that oscillating between varying kinds of learning actions is an additional characterizing feature of‘intelligent practice.’

Discussion: The findings demonstrate how the learning of movement capability could occur when providing opportunities to engage in ‘intelligent practice’ while at the same time directing their focal awareness toward what is most beneficial to them. Opposed to a ‘step-by-step’ approach to learning, the learners come to know a movement landscape as extending one’s capability to discern and differentiate details, nuances, and their relationships. The findings suggest that it may be beneficial for learners to get opportunities to oscillate between different kinds of learning actions.

Introduction

Physical education researchers have become increasingly interested in movement capability in the last decade. This increased interest could be the result of at least a couple of inﬂuential commen-taries. Almost two decades ago, Evans (2004) claimed that discussions of what it meant to be phys-ically educated were scarce and that physical education had justiﬁed its place on school curricula with claims to just about anything other than movement learning. Almost a decade later, Kirk (2010) roundly criticized physical education’s preoccupation with decontextualized techniques,

which he claimed are unlikely to help pupils participated in movement cultures outside school

set-tings (Kirk2010). Researchers appear to have responded and have launched a number of research

initiatives in the area of movement capability (e.g. Renshaw and Chow2019; Roberts, Newcombe,

and Davids2019). Our own research has contributed to this growing understanding of movement

capability.

We have been concerned to challenge narrow views of ability and explore what knowing can

mean when it comes to movement education (see e.g. Nyberg2015; Nyberg and Carlgren 2015;

Nyberg, Barker, and Larsson2020). In this paper, we want to broaden our focus, complementing

our earlier focus on the meaning of movement capability with an additional focus on what it can mean to learn movement capability. To do this, we develop the idea that learning movement capa-bility can be likened to extending one’s familiarity with a landscape (Nyberg, Barker, and Larsson

2020). From this perspective, learning concerns what one does in a movement landscape that even-tually leads to further familiarity with that landscape. In this paper, we draw on observational and interview data to illustrate the processes by which three individuals familiarize themselves with movement landscapes. The speciﬁc landscapes investigated are juggling in grade nine physical edu-cation, dancing in a sports coaching program, and unicycling in physical education teacher education.

Movement education research

Movement learning has been thoroughly investigated in the area of motor learning research (see e.g. Abernethy and Zawi2007; Magill2011; Laguna2008; Iserbyt et al.2010). Although these studies have contributed to a substantial understanding of motor learning, they have been criticized for their reliance on experimental designs where learning is often decontextualized, simpliﬁed, and

investigated in laboratory settings (Barhama 2019). Unsurprisingly, pedagogy researchers have

claimed that motor learning theories emanating from such studies are often diﬃcult to apply in educational settings (Tinning2010; Steel et al.2013; Tidén, Redelius, and Lundvall2017). Critique has also been directed toward the dualistic approach to learning on which these studies have been based (Tinning2010; Barhama2019; Moe2004).

(4)

More pedagogically-inspired studies of movement education exist. Such studies have attempted

to outline diﬀerent theoretical perspectives, models, and principles that may prove useful in

movement learning situations. These studies include guidelines for promoting physical literacy

(Durden-Myers, Green, and Whitehead2018; Roberts, Newcombe, and Davids 2019); principles

for designing teaching by using the nonlinear pedagogy or constraints-led approach (Chow

2013; Renshaw and Chow2019); principles for enhancing embodied learning based on

phenomen-ology and existentialism (Thorburn and Stolz2017); guidelines for using phenomenography and

the variation theory of learning (Nyberg and Carlgren2015); and principles for implementing a phi-losophically-informed kind of‘practising’ (Barker et al.2018). Researchers have also investigated

the eﬀects of using diﬀerent theories and models on movement learning (Gray and Sproule

2011; Bergentoft 2018; Nyberg 2018), whereas some scholars have compared diﬀerent models

(see e.g. Bozkurt2018; Hooyman, Wulf, and Lewthwaite2014).

The majority of this research has focused on teaching. This focus has left the process of learning

somewhat unexplored. Chow (2013), for example, asserted that‘the over emphasis on comparing

one teaching approach against another has blinded researchers from examining more meaningful information about the processes present in these diﬀerent approaches’ (479). Studies that have

taken learners’ experiences into account (Bergentoft 2018; Nyberg and Carlgren 2015; Nyberg

2015; Rönnqvist et al.2019) have tended to overlook what learners actually‘do,’ or the actions that they take, to develop movement capability (see e.g. Lindgren and Barker (2019) and Barker, Nyberg, and Larsson (2020) for exceptions). There is thus a need for empirical studies that inves-tigate students’ learning processes in educational contexts.

Theoretical framework: knowing and learning moving diﬀerently

Our conception of movement capability as a type of practical knowledge accords with Ryle’s (2009)

notion of ‘knowing how’ and Polanyi’s (1969) conception of ‘knowing.’ From this perspective,

movement capability comprises both‘practical’ and ‘theoretical’ knowledge as an indivisible whole.

Other scholars in the ﬁeld of sport, physical education, and philosophy of sport have been

inspired by Ryle and Polanyi when discussing and investigating epistemological issues regarding practical bodily knowledge. Stolz (2013), for example, has highlighted Ryle’s notion of practical

knowledge and intelligent performance as signiﬁcant for physical educators, whereas Breivik

(2014) emphasizes Ryle’s critique of intellectualism, which holds that practical ‘know how’ is pre-ceded by mental acts. Additionally, Hawkins (2008) and Kretchmar (2000), when arguing for the

signiﬁcance of meaning in moving and how to strengthen pedagogy in the ﬁeld of sport and

phys-ical education, base their arguments on Polanyi’s ideas of tacit knowing and his notion of meaning. In essence, these scholars have all asserted a need for viewing bodily knowledge as embracing prac-tical as well as theoreprac-tical knowledge.

We have previously investigated possible meanings of movement capability with this holistic approach to knowing (see e.g. Nyberg2015; Nyberg and Carlgren2015; Nyberg, Barker, and Lars-son2020) and asserted the beneﬁts of investigating what there is to know (and learn) in movement

education. Ourﬁndings from these studies suggest that some ‘what-aspects’ with regard to

move-ment capability are, for example, knowing one’s own way of moving, knowing a rhythm, and knowing

a pattern (Nyberg2014; Nyberg2015; Nyberg, Barker, and Larsson2020). Thus, learning

move-ment capability can involve developing one’s capability to know rhythms or patterns. Following

Polanyi’s (1969) contentions that knowing, regardless of whether one considers it in a‘practical’ or‘theoretical’ sense, is personal and embodied, and that knowing is dependent on a transactional

relationship between focal and subsidiary awareness, we regard learning as extending one’s

awareness.

In this paper, we combine Ryle’s and Polanyi’s ideas concerning practical knowledge with the idea of knowing as familiarity with a landscape (Carlgren et al.2015; Hirst2010). Familiarity has to do with a sense of feel for a place (or in our case, a way of moving). It is centrally concerned

(5)

with what one notices or discerns when one is exploring the place. Carlgren et al. (2015) provide a useful example from theﬁeld of biology:

… people who know a lot of biology relate to nature in special ways – an expert biologist discerns (and there-fore can see) a more differentiated fauna and flora as well as traces of biological processes as compared to a non-biologist. The ability to discern has several layers. On one level there is the recognizing and knowing the names of different species. On another level the ability to determine the species includes elements such as an acquaintance with the different parts of plants such as e.g. leaves or stalks. The biologist must also discern different groups or families of plants, which in turn, are ordered in relation to each other into a huge system of classification. (Carlgren et al.2015, 147)

The biologist has, during her learning process, integrated‘subsidiaries,’ thus building a compre-hensive subsidiary knowing. A person’s focal awareness depends on what constitutes the subsidiary knowing (Polanyi2002, 55), which means that what is an expert’s focal awareness diﬀers from the focal awareness of a novice.

Conceiving of knowing in this way can help us to think about how individuals might learn. If knowing comes about through participating, or dwelling in a landscape, with an aim at becoming familiar with it, then examining what individuals do while they dwell can provide us with insights into learning. Ryle’s (2009) notion of‘intelligent practice’ is useful in thinking through the kinds of actions individuals might engage in. Characterizing features of intelligent practice includes being sensitive to one’s own actions, changing one’s behavior as the result of mistakes, and proﬁting from the examples of others (Ryle2009, 17). These actions are not necessarily steered by a preceding mental intellectual process, nor are they easily verbalized. Nonetheless, actions involved in intelli-gent practice can be seen as‘learning actions.’

Seeing learning as an intelligent process through which learners build their subsidiary knowing connects with the ideas of educational philosopher Hirst (2010). Hirst rejects traditional step-by-step conceptions of learning. He proposes that: ‘no one means to the end is logically necessary,

and which is the best means depends on numerous facts about me and my circumstances’ (Hirst

2010, 10). Swedish educationalist Ingrid Carlgren builds on Hirst’s description of learning as a non-hierarchical way of coming to know something. She suggests that:‘gradually you learn to discern more and more nuances, understand how the diﬀerent parts are interconnected as well as [develop] an ability to orient yourself in the landscape’ (Carlgren2012, 124). She adds that such landscape thinking can be contrasted with traditional conceptions of learning, where the acquisition of knowledge is seen as climbing consecutive rungs on a ladder‘one step at a time’ (124).

Taken together Ryle’s, Polanyi’s, Hirst’s, and Carlgren’s propositions related to knowing and learning inform our perspective on learning in movement education. That is, we understand learn-ing, or more specifically developing movement capability, as continuously expanding one’s ability to discern nuances and their relationships. People may do this through intelligent practice, invol-ving reflection, flexibility, and willingness to change, and an awareness of others around them. On a more abstract level, discerning nuances and engaging in intelligent practices can be seen to take place as a process of dwelling in a movement landscape. Dwelling may provide possibilities for integrating subsidiaries to expand one’s tacit as well as explicit capability to move in different

ways. Furthermore, since learners often diﬀer from one another in what they discern, there are

possibilities to learn by observing or communicating with others. Methodology

The results reported in this paper come from a larger project in which movement learning was

investigated in diﬀerent movement educational contexts in Sweden (three grade nine PE classes,

one physical education teacher education group, and one coach education group, approximately

110 learners in total). The investigation was action-oriented (Kemmis and McTaggart 2005) in

that the researchers created pedagogical modules, collaborated with teachers and university educa-tors to develop the modules in line with the needs of their respective groups, and assisted with the

(6)

implementation of the modules. The speciﬁc aspects of producing empirical material are described below.

The learning modules

The learning modules were designed to encourage students to engage in‘intelligent practice’ (Ryle

2009) and provide students time to‘dwell’ in (Polanyi1962), and reflect on, their own as well as others’ ways of moving. Specific learning experiences were created in a way that reconfigured hier-archically organized, goal-directed skills, and our intention was to help students approach learning

as exploring a landscape (Nyberg, Barker, and Larsson 2020; see also Barker, Bergentoft, and

Nyberg (2017) and Barker, Nyberg, and Larsson (2020) for discussions of embodied exploration). The general assignment for the learners was to develop a sophisticated appreciation of the move-ment activity rather than an ability to perform a movemove-ment in a speciﬁc way.

With regard to the movement activities, we selected unicycling, dancing, and juggling, which we deemed to be activities that fall outside a‘mainstream sport’ category. The intention was to provide learning experiences that, as far as possible, did not disadvantage students without sporting back-grounds (Tidén, Redelius, and Lundvall2017). Approximately ten hours of learning activities were planned in each module. The juggling module activities involved a combination of station cards and teacher-directed group activities. The station cards provided inspiration for different kinds of exer-cises presented asfilms, pictures, and questions to reflect upon, both individually and in collabor-ation with peers. Instructions for the group activities were provided by the teacher and contained an element of challenge (e.g. can your group come up with different ways to juggle?). The unicycling involved brief inputs from the teacher educator, relatively long periods of practising in which the students could attempt to unicycle with the aid of different apparatus, and whole-group discussions in which students reported their experiences and shared what they were learning about unicycling. Dancing activities were presented by the course lecturer and through instructional video clips. The students spent a significant part of the ten hours – approximately four hours – practising dance moves and putting them together in a routine. The module culminated in performances given by each of the groups.

Sample selection

For the purpose of this study, we selected one student from each movement activity who appeared to be a novice initially and who developed considerable movement capability over the course of their learning module. We evaluated improvement differently in the different contexts. In juggling, it meant going from not being able to keep two objects moving through the air to managing to throw and catch different objects in a pattern that made continuous juggling possible. In unicycling, it meant going from not being able to pedal on the unicycle to riding without support and managing to regain balance after disruption. In dance, it meant going from jerky, halting ways of dancing to moving in ways that were similar to the presented dance moves and being able to put at least four dance moves together to form a dance sequence. Additionally, pragmatic criteria were that (1) the students were present for the majority of the lessons and (2) they were caught by the cameras during the ten-hour modules.

Data production

With each group, we produced both experiential (interview and reﬂective-writing) and spatial

(video and ﬁeld notes) data. Due to the theoretical framing of this paper, and speciﬁcally the

attempt to understand students’ approaches to learning in terms of their actions, only video data are referred to here. Video data were produced by two researchers circulating in the learning

(7)

groups of individuals, remaining with individuals/groups for approximatelyﬁve minutes at a time. The researchers entered the sessions as‘interested physical educators,’ a role that involved entering

into ethnographic-type conversations (Spradley1979) with the students and asking the students

questions about their learning experiences. Analysis

Theﬁrst step in the analysis was to watch all the video footage of each of the three students, while they were exploring the landscapes of juggling, unicycling, and dancing. While watching this video material, each student’s actions and verbal expressions were transcribed. Transcription was theor-etically driven, and transcriptions covered aspects related to the ways that the students’ actions and expressions could be seen as (tentative) attempts at coming to know the landscapes of unicycling,

dancing, or juggling, in more complex and diﬀerentiated ways. Questions guiding analysis were:

what do the students ‘do’ when they explore the landscape? What seems to be beneﬁcial for

them coming to know the landscape? In what way do they explore? Do they ask for help and if so, what kind of help?

After transcribing all of the students’ actions and verbal expressions, the next step was to return to the actions/expressions and provide them with codes. This step was initially done by thefirst author, who relied on what Miles, Huberman, and Saldaña (2013) refer to as in vivo coding. The third step of the analysis was collaborative in nature. Thefirst author sent the marked transcriptions to the other authors. Together, the authors came to an agreement on the possible meanings of the marked expressions, as they related to different ways of coming to know a landscape. Our goal in this analytic activity was to gather all observed ways of exploring and identify differences in the stu-dents’ ways of acting (as opposed to trying to see what was overall characteristic for each student). Ethical considerations

Ethical approval was granted by the Regional Research Ethical Review Committee. The research was conducted in accordance with the Swedish Research Council’s ethical guidelines (SRC2017). Par-ticipants, and where relevant their guardians, were informed about the project, its purpose, and how collected material would be used. Informed, active consent, which included the possibility to cease participation at any time, was obtained from the participants. The use of video cameras raises issues of confidentiality, possibilities for anonymity, and privacy for all participants. The video-filmed material was only used for research purposes and was stored in a manner that prevents unauthor-ized use. Anonymity was not possible or desirable in the analysis of the data. Instead, we aimed for anonymity in the presentation/publication of the research results. Therefore, the students’ names arefictitious in this paper.

Findings

Ella explores the landscape of juggling Ella’s learning environment

Three girls are practising juggling, one of whom is Ella. Ella seems to be comfortable with her group and they appear to be good friends. When the teacher asks Ella to work in another group, she quietly returns to her friends anyway. Mostly, the girls just laugh when the objects (beanbags, scarves, or balls) fall to the ground. Ella seems to be comfortable in this learning environment, and this allows her to explore the movement landscape in a joyful, carefree manner. Ella’s group stays with their selected tasks provided in each lesson, and in this way, the girls encourage each other to persist with their exploration of juggling. In the last two lessons, however, when the class’s task is to create a short juggling show, Ella’s approach changes. She is placed in another group,

(8)

which combined with the change of task, and seems to inhibit her experimenting and playfulness. She appears to become reluctant to search for new possible paths in the landscape. Furthermore, she laughs less than she did when working with her two friends. Ella’s exploration is less joyful than before.

Playing around in the terrain

From the very beginning, Ella seems to be comfortable in exploring and experimenting when throwing and catching diﬀerent objects. She plays, smiles, and laughs.

Ella has grabbed two beanbags and throws them in one big circle quite successfully. In other words, she throws them from left hand to right hand, from the right hand up and landing in the left. She smiles all the time. One of the researchers asks‘ok, what are you doing now, tell me.’ Ella laughs and says ‘ha, ha, I don’t know really.’ She goes on throwing the bean bags in one circle.‘Isn’t this the way to do it … and then you should clap also.’ She tries to clap her hand on the chest while juggling but drops the bean bags. (L1, Camera 1G, GP020005)

Ella is playing and experimenting not only with bean bags, skittles, and balls but also with her own way of moving. She tries out what happens when jumping while throwing objects higher and higher, and she also tries to perform gymnastic moves before catching the thrown objects:

[…] she throws the ball up in the air while at the same time performing a ‘split jump’ before she catches the ball again. After a couple of minutes she stops, seemingly thinking about something. Then she throws the ball up again and performs a cartwheel. (L 3, camera 1, GP03004)

On the whole, Ella seems to be relaxed and playful. She explores the landscape of juggling as if there is nothing to fear‘in there.’ She tries out diﬀerent possible paths in diﬀerent directions in a carefree mood.

Checking the map

Although Ella is playfully running around in the terrain in terms of playing and experimenting, she also wants, to a certain extent, to keep control. She often gathers the balls and bean bags to her chest before initiating her next attempt (and dropping them):

Ella seems to stop the juggling when she feels a skittle will fall and manage to gather both at her chest before that happens. When she occasionally drops one skittle she throws herself to theﬂoor trying to catch it. (L 3, Camera 1, GP020008)

She grabs them again and this time she adds a third bean bag, throws them all up in the air and catches them like she is holding a baby at her chest. (L1, Camera 1G, GP020005)

It seems as if Ella sometimes gathers the objects to her chest, even when it is not necessary. This could be likened to‘checking the map,’ or coming back to a ‘familiar’ position before setting oﬀ to explore the unfamiliar again.

Investigating one chosen path

Quite often, Ella leaves her spontaneous and rather unsystematic exploration of the terrain and

chooses one path to pursue. When she does this, her engagement appears more ‘rational’ and

thought-through:

[…] she grabs two bags in her right hand, one in her left and seems to think. She throws one bag from the right hand up in the air and catches it with her left hand. She seems very concentrated. Then she tries again also throwing the second bag from her right hand. (L1, Camera 1G, GP020005)

When Ella tries toﬁnd out in what order the objects are to be thrown, she takes one bean bag and moves it upward through the air to the other hand. Then she repeats this with the second bean bag following the pattern in which it should be thrown if she would juggle with the‘cascade pattern’ instead of in one big circle (L1, Camera 1G, GP020005). In this sequence, she slows down, following one path as if she is looking for clues that will help herﬁnd a way.

(9)

Occasionally, Ella retreats into her‘own world,’ but much of the time, she is exploring and inter-acting with others:

Ella turns to her friend. They try toﬁgure out the pattern in which the bean bags should be thrown. They practise together and suddenly Ella succeeds with one‘lap.’ She stops, looking surprised and then she smiles widely. (L1, Camera 1G, GP020005)

Ella’s success seems to be a lucky accident, but she shows awareness of her success. When learn-ing one path thoroughly, Ella sometimes travels alone and sometimes she travels with someone else. Ella’s approach to exploring and learning the landscape of juggling can be described as oscillating between diﬀerent ways of exploring. Sometimes she experiments in a playful way while at the same time aiming at controlling the objects. At other times, she leaves her playful experimenting, staying at one path to learn it in a more‘rational’ manner. Both ways can be conducted individually or with someone else.

Robert explores the landscape of dancing Robert’s learning environment

Robert is a coach education student participating in the dance class. He seems to be quite relaxed with the group in which he starts to work. It is apparent that he considers himself a novice and he places himself in the background, often observing his classmates without moving. In many respects, he acts out his lack of experience in dancing. The members of his group are also, more or less, novices, but they are keen to start moving, trying out diﬀerent paths. Robert does not explicitly ask for help although his group members are willing to help. Only when one of the researchers suggests that Robert needs assistance, does he ask for directions.

When Robert joins another group in the last two lessons, his learning environment changes. After having learned quite a lot regarding the diﬀerent dance moves through trying out diﬀerent possible paths as well as investigating some paths thoroughly, he now just follows two classmates who have assumed leader roles within the group.

Occupying the vantage point

When each new dance move is introduced, either by the teacher or through a video, Robert takes a position as an observer. As observer, he does not move except for lightly stroking or pulling his beard. He just watches:

The instructor on the video starts with showing the step in a fast mode and then in a slow mode. Robert’s classmates start imitating, following the instructor. Robert does not. He still stands with his arm crossed occasionally pulling his beard, watching. Afterﬁve minutes, Robert does not yet move. (L 1, Camera 1, GP050096)

Although Robert does not follow the instructor as his classmates do, he seems to be actively observing and after a while, he also begins to imitate the instructor on the video. It is like he initially prefers to get a view of the landscape from above before he explores diﬀerent possible pathways. Following

Robert follows others’ ways of moving in diﬀerent ways. At times, he seems to merely imitate

with-out reﬂecting on his own way of moving:

They practise many times. Robert manages quite well sometimes although he struggles to catch up. He is like marching in the end of a line of soldiers rather than dancing on his own. (L 5, camera 1, GP010678)

At other times, he imitates with another kind of awareness. In the excerpt below, Robert and two classmates practise a dance move called‘the shuﬄe.’ Elisa tries to instruct Robert:

(10)

Elisa raises her left knee. Robert follows.‘And then’ (to Robert). She slides backwards with the other foot. Robert follows and manages to do this. The researcher says‘yeah’ pointing at Robert. Robert smiles. Elisa and Robert continue doing the shuﬄe slowly. Robert has diﬃculties with balancing. He seems to thoroughly concentrate and sense how he is moving. (L 1, Camera 1, GP050096)

Robert imitates and follows either actively with the sharp awareness of his way of moving, or passively in terms of following on a leash, through a landscape without knowing where he is head-ing. In this latter kind of action, he is merely trying to catch up and become more aware of the lea-ders’ ways of moving than his own.

At times, Robert seems to analyze his way of moving by dividing the movement up into parts. He is

deeply concentrated, for example, when trying toﬁgure out how to do ‘the shuﬄe’:

Robert shakes his body a bit and takes a position in order to try again. He takes a deep breath and makes a move with his arms up-down as he blows out the air. Then he tries again. The other students in his group perform‘the shuﬄe’ in a fast way but Robert ignores them, moves slowly, one part of the move, stops and then next. He manages but loses balance before ending the movement. He starts again, this time in a diﬀerent position holding his arms spread out to the sides, he slides, stops and laughs.‘What’s the name of the guy in the Magill-book… the one who says you should break down the movement’, he says. (L 1, Camera 1, GP050096)

In this situation, Robert is referring to a course textbook. The‘textbook approach’ is to break the movement down into parts, practise each part separately, and then put them together. This would be similar to investigating one path in a landscape before moving on to a second and third, and eventually attempting to connect the paths together to get a sense of the whole area. Robert does, however, also attempt to see the‘whole area’ by trying the dance move without breaking it into parts:

Robert imitates the instructor on the video and he manages this step (kick ball change) immediately. However, when trying further he leaves out the end of‘the change.’ But he continues to imitate. He gets it again and soon he also moves his arms. It seems that he is conﬁdent in doing the kick ball change! (L 2, Camera 1, GP010100)

In other words, Robert explores and learns one path in the landscape of dancing in two distinct ways: as if the path consists of separate sequences, and as if it is a nondivisible whole.

Playing around in the terrain

Sometimes, Robert is playing around in the terrain in terms of experimenting and creating diﬀerent ways of moving. This is especially obvious when he and his group are dealing with the task of ‘inter-preting’ a movement that is only textually described:

The group walk to the next station where a written description of‘the wave’ is. Albert and Robert read quietly side by side. Robert starts to wave his arms. Then he raises up and tries a‘bigger wave’ but still only with his arms, bending his knees a little bit. He varies this for a while and stops. Then he bends forward, starts with his hands on theﬂoor and does a wave-like movement ending up standing with raised arms. While Albert is still reading, Robert moves all the time, trying out diﬀerent ways of ‘doing waves.’ It looks smooth. (L 2, Camera 1, GP030100)

Earlier in this lesson, Robert described himself as‘stiﬀ,’ which is not the case when he explores ‘the wave.’ He also tries to help Albert and John (who try to understand through reading and

mov-ing one body part at the time) by usmov-ing metaphors:‘you could instead imagine sea weed, waving

under the water’ (L 2, Camera 1, GP040100).

Robert explores the landscape of dancing by trying out diﬀerent paths, playing around quite

freely in the terrain. He frequently shows his diﬃculties and laughs. Robert’s overall approach to

coming to know the landscape of dancing can be described as oscillating between diﬀerent ways

of learning of which two signiﬁcant ways are exploring one path in a concentrated and determined manner, either as learning the parts or the whole, and moving around in the terrain, experimenting,

(11)

and playing. Sometimes he explores the landscape together with others, but for the most part, Robert seems to prefer doing this alone. He seemingly also prefers to observe, occupying the vantage point, before he starts his embodied exploration.

Sanne explores the landscape of unicycling Sanne’s learning environment

Sanne is very active in her learning environment. She approaches classmates, asks questions, asks for help, and discusses with them how to learn unicycling. She chooses to work with diﬀerent peers. She actively observes others’ diﬀerent ways of exploring how to unicycle and then determines and practises her own ways of exploring pathways.

Sanne is persistent and sometimes angry but most of the time she laughs when she fails to ride the unicycle as many of her classmates do. She practises a lot together with one student who is also engaged and persistent while at the same time helpful and encouraging. Her body posture often signals‘angry determination.’ On the other hand, failing seems for Sanne and many of her class-mates to be something that is required and part of the learning process.

Actively observing

Sanne seems to be very engaged in learning unicycling. She observes her classmates’ trials and

discusses and comments on ways to improve her own (and others’) unicycling:

Sanne is working with Ylva at a box. Ylva mounts the unicycle and Sanne is watching, holding out her hand for support. After a couple of meters Ylva falls. Sanne asks:‘shouldn’t we try to raise the saddle?’ One of the researchers asks why she suggests this. Sanne says‘well I think … coming up more’ … she shows by stretching herself.‘Instead of like … ’ she bends forward. Ylva wants to try again and Sanne oﬀers her hand as support. While doing this she observes Ylva’s pedalling, quite concentrated. Ylva falls. The researcher says to Sanne ‘I think you have a point there’ and Sanne encourages Ylva to raise the saddle. (L 1, Camera 1, GP040028)

Sanne actively directs her attention to different aspects of unicycling, specifically one’s position on the bike and in the above case, the height of the saddle and how this can affect one’s upper body position. She is active in terms of interacting with other students in order to notice details and their relations in the landscape.

Sanne persistently practises, either with support from a classmate or alone. A considerable part of her practising involves struggling withﬁnding a balanced start position on the unicycle. She

exper-iments with diﬀerent strategies that may help her and one solution seems to be ﬁnding a proper

height of the saddle:

Sanne mounts the bike, Ylva supports with her hand. Sanne seems to be aware of whether the height of the saddle is good for her or not.‘I don’t think I would like it higher’ she says. (L 2, Camera 1, GOPR0619)

Apart fromﬁnding a proper height of the saddle, she tries to be aware of where to look and what muscles ought to be tightened:

Sanne cycles on her own at least ten meters. She stops and raises both arms in a victory gesture.‘GOOD’, Karen shouts,‘shit what happened?’ ‘I don’t know’, Sanne says, ‘I just balanced.’ Sanne tries again and man-ages to ride even further. It looks balanced and stable at least 20 meters. She stops, raises her arms again and makes some happy dance moves. When she is back, Sanne and Karen discuss how to best control the bike through ‘tightening one’s butt.’ Karen says that this is a way to make the bike a ‘part of the body’ and Sanne agrees. (L 3, Karen’s camera, GP020645)

Sanne explores and develops an understanding of one path in the landscape of unicycling. She continues to explore the landscape, whereas some others in the group decide to sit down and have a break. There is one part of the landscape that she thinks is especially important to understand so she

(12)

stays there, trying to work out what it is and how it works in a quite rational and systematic way. She uses her senses, observes, and discusses with classmates and is persistent in her practising. She both

receives and oﬀers support in terms of advice and concrete support through holding hands.

She oscillates between practising on her own and actively observing others. Discussion

Our aim of this study was to complement our earlier focus on the meaning of movement capability with an additional focus on what it can mean to learn movement. In achieving this purpose, we have investigated students’ learning processes in terms of how they explore and familiarize themselves

with the movement landscapes of juggling, dancing, and unicycling. Theﬁndings show the

stu-dents’ varying ways of exploring a movement landscape as playing around in the terrain; checking the map; investigating one chosen path; occupying the vantage point; following; playing around in the terrain; and actively observing.

When comparing the diﬀerent ways of exploring, similarities as well as diﬀerences regarding

ways of exploring can be noted. Ella’s, Robert’s, and Sanne’s ways of exploring diﬀer regarding what they‘do most.’ Ella is to a great extent involved in pleasurable, carefree exploration, with

elements of systematic exploration; Robert is involved in systematic exploration (‘getting it

right’), with some elements of pleasurable exploration but speciﬁcally with a lot of contemplation (when he pulls his beard, observing); and Sanne is also involved in systematic exploration (‘getting it right’), with a lot of determination and active observing (rather than contemplation).

The most apparent similarity is a feature within the research participants’ ways of exploring that we call oscillating between diﬀerent kinds of ‘doings.’ Oscillation designates a move back and forth between two (or several) points, and Ella’s exploration oscillates between (a) lively experimenting (playing around) and systematic practising (investigating one chosen path), and (b) group and indi-vidual exploration. Robert’s exploration oscillates between (a) actively doing and withdrawn obser-vation, (b) imitating and experimenting (playing around), and, like Ella, (c) group and individual exploration. Sanne’s exploration oscillates between (a) actively doing and active observation, and, like Ella and Robert, (b) group and individual exploration. Thus, group and individual exploration are noticeable among all three of them.

The learners in this study chose different ways of exploring the landscapes, and they are to a great extent engaged in what Ryle (2009) would call‘intelligent practice.’ They seem to (i) be sensitive to their own actions (when investigating one path as well as when playing around and experimenting); (ii) change their actions as the result of mistakes (e.g. when varying their experimenting and when Sanne decides to change the height of the saddle), and (iii) profit from examples of others (when observing and imitating). According to thesefindings, we suggest that oscillating between varying kinds of learning actions is an additional characterizing feature of‘intelligent practice.’

Engaging and dwelling in‘intelligent practice’ allow, we argue, individuals to direct their focal awareness to what is most beneﬁcial for them. As mentioned earlier, one can assume that learners’ earlier embodied movement experiences vary. The result is that in a group of learners, individual subsidiary knowing diﬀers widely. Consequently, a learner whose subsidiary knowing is extensive needs to attend focally to other aspects than a learner whose subsidiary knowing is less extensive (see Polanyi1969).

Theﬁndings demonstrate how the learning of movement capability could occur when providing

opportunities to engage in‘intelligent practice’ (Ryle2009) while at the same time directing their focal awareness (Polanyi1969) toward what is most beneﬁcial to them. The ﬁndings suggest that oscillating between varying kinds of learning actions is a characterizing feature of‘intelligent prac-tice.’ This study also provides examples of how learners can explore and familiarize themselves with a movement landscape in a nonhierarchical way (Hirst2010). Opposed to a‘step-by-step’ approach

to learning, they come to know a movement landscape as discerning and diﬀerentiating details,

(13)

This study diﬀers from traditional motor learning research in that it is conducted in authentic educational settings as opposed to laboratory contexts. This may enhance the use of theﬁndings in movement education settings (Barhama2019; Steel et al.2013; Tidén, Redelius, and Lundvall2017). A dualistic approach to learning (critiqued by e.g. Tinning 2010; Barhama 2019; Moe 2004) has been replaced by a perspective on learning as becoming familiar with a landscape, thus replacing a traditional hierarchical step-by-step approach to learning. Finally, in contrast to earlier work

that has considered the place of knowing in movement education (Nyberg2015; Nyberg, Barker,

and Larsson2020), we have focused on what is involved in learning. Our perspective on knowing

and learning in this paper does not separate practical knowing from theoretical knowing but instead approaches them as one in the same. To learn or to familiarize oneself with a movement landscape involves the development of both aspects of knowing.

Although we based the learning sequences on an approach to knowing and learning as becoming familiar with a landscape, we did not specify guidelines or principles for teaching (see e.g.

Durden-Myers, Green, and Whitehead2018; Roberts, Newcombe, and Davids2019; Renshaw and Chow

2019; Thorburn and Stolz2017). Nor did we investigate the eﬀects of any model or principles as was done by Gray and Sproule (2011) and Bergentoft (2018). Rather, we have suggested a way of approaching learning, designed learning sequences, and then chose three learners whose progress was apparent in order to analyze their learning processes.

Conclusion

The aim of this study was to understand students’ learning processes and how they come to fam-iliarize themselves with the movement landscapes of juggling, dancing, and unicycling. The study

shows how the learning of movement capability could occur when learners are‘dwelling’ (Polanyi

1969) in, and engaged in‘intelligent practice’ (Ryle2009).

Thefindings suggest that oscillating between varying kinds of learning actions is a characterizing feature of‘intelligent practice.’ These different kinds of learning actions, and opportunities to oscil-late between them, could be acknowledged by teachers when arranging learning environments with the aim of helping learners to develop movement capability. We want to emphasize also that the way the teacher acts, listens, and interacts with the students during their practising is important. The teacher can help learners by providing them with opportunities to vary their movement learn-ing actions. It may be useful to set aside time for reflective action or observation, for example, or simply ask pupils to dedicate some time to these actions while practising. It may even be useful simply to identify different learning actions explicitly so that learners are aware of different options for action while coming to develop movement capability. The teacher can also enable learning by suggesting and showing variations of the different tasks with the aim of helping learners to develop their movement capability.

Disclosure statement

No potential conﬂict of interest was reported by the author(s).

Funding

This work was supported by Vetenskapsrådet [grant number 2017-03471].

ORCID

D. Barker http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4162-9844

(14)

References

Abernethy, B., and K. Zawi.2007.“Pickup of Essential Kinematics Underpins Expert Perception of Movement Patterns.” Journal of Motor Behaviour 39 (5): 353–367.

Barhama, A. 2019. “It is Time to Move from Motor Behaviour and Sport Psychology Labs to Naturalistic Environments.” International Journal of Motor Control and Learning 2 (2): 27–30.

Barker, D. M., K. Aggerholm, O. Standal, and H. Larsson. 2018.“Developing the Practising Model in Physical Education: an Expository Outline Focusing on Movement Capability.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 23 (2): 209–221.

Barker, D., H. Bergentoft, and G. Nyberg. 2017. “What Would Physical Educators Know About Movement Education? A Review of Literature, 2006–2016.” Quest 69 (4): 419–435.

Barker, D., G. Nyberg, and H. Larsson. 2020. “Exploring Movement Learning in Physical Education Using a Threshold Approach.” Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 1: 1–10.

Bergentoft, H. 2018. “Running: A Way to Increase Body Awareness in Secondary School Physical Education.” European Physical Education Review, 1–19.

Bozkurt, S.2018.“The Eﬀects of Diﬀerential Learning and Traditional Learning Trainings on Technical Development of Football Players.” Journal of Education and Training Studies 6 (4a): 1–5.

Breivik, G.2014.“Sporting Knowledge and the Problem of Knowing How.” Journal of the Philosophy of Sport 41 (2): 143–162.

Carlgren, I. 2012. “Kunskap för Bildning? [Knowledge for Bildung?].” In Vad Räknas som Kunskap? Läroplansteoretiska Utsikter och Inblickar i Lärarutbildning och Skola, [What Counts as Knowledge? Curriculum Theory in Teacher Education and School], edited by T. Englund, E. Forsberg, and D. Sundberg, 118–139. Stockholm: Liber.

Carlgren, I., P. Ahlstrand, E. Björkholm, and G. Nyberg.2015.“The Meaning of Knowing What is to Be Known.” Didactique and Education 9 (1): 143–159.

Chow, J. Y.2013.“Nonlinear Learning Underpinning Pedagogy: Evidence, Challenges, and Implications.” Quest 65: 469–484.

Durden-Myers, E. J., N. R. Green, and M. E. Whitehead.2018.“Implications for Promoting Physical Literacy.” Journal of Teaching in Physical Education 37: 262–227.

Evans, J.2004.“Making a Diﬀerence? Education and ‘Ability’ in Physical Education.” European Physical Education Review 10 (1): 95–108.

Gray, S., and J. Sproule.2011.“Developing Pupils’ Performance in Team Invasion Games.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 16 (1): 15–32.

Hawkins, A.2008.“Pragmatism, Purpose, and Play: Struggle for the Soul of Physical Education.” Quest 60: 345–356. Hirst, P.2010. Knowledge and the Curriculum. A Collection of Philosophical Papers. Oxon: Routledge and Kegan. Hooyman, A., G. Wulf, and R. Lewthwaite. 2014. “Impacts of Autonomy-Supportive Versus Controlling

Instructional Language on Motor Learning.” Human Movement Science 36: 190–198.

Iserbyt, P., B. Madou, J. Elen, and D. Behets.2010.“Task Card Instruction: The Eﬀect of Diﬀerent Cue Sequences on Students’ Learning in Tennis.” European Physical Education Review 16 (3): 237–249.

Kemmis, S., and R. McTaggart.2005.“Participatory Action Research: Communicative Action and the Public Sphere.” In The Sage Handbook of Qualitative Research, edited by N. Denzin, and Y. Lincoln, 559–604. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kirk, D.2010. Physical Education Futures. London: Routledge.

Kretchmar, R. S.2000.“Moving and Being Moved: Implications for Practice.” Quest 52 (3): 260–272.

Laguna, P. L.2008.“Task Complexity and Sources of Task-Related Information During the Observational Learning Process.” Journal of Sport Science 26 (10): 1097–1113.

Lindgren, R., and D. Barker.2019.“Implementing the Movement-Oriented Practising Model (MPM) in Physical Education: Empirical Findings Focusing on Student Learning.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 24 (5): 534–547.

Magill, R. A.2011. Motor Learning and Control: Concepts and Applications. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Miles, M. B., A. B. Huberman, and J. Saldaña.2013. Qualitative Data Analysis: A Methods Sourcebook. Thousand Oaks: Sage Publications.

Moe, V. F.2004.“How to Understand Skill Acquisition in Sport.” Bulletin of Science, Technology & Society 24 (3): 213–224.

Nyberg, G. 2014. “Exploring ‘Knowings’ in Human Movement : The Practical Knowledge of Pole-Vaulters.” European Physical Education Review 20 (1): 72–89.

Nyberg, G.2015.“Developing a ‘Somatic Velocimeter’ – The Practical Knowledge of Freeskiers.” Qualitative Research in Sport, Exercise and Health 7 (4): 488–503.

Nyberg, G.2018.“Att urskilja och erfara sitt sätt att springa - kan elever lära sig det i idrott och hälsa? [Experiencing One’s Own Way of Running – Can Students Learn This in Physical Education?].” Forskning om Undervisning och Lärande 6 (1): 43–63.

(15)

Nyberg, G., D. Barker, and H. Larsson.2020.“Exploring the Educational Landscape of Juggling: Challenging Notions of Ability in Physical Education.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 25 (2): 201–212.

Nyberg, G. B., and I. M. Carlgren.2015.“Exploring Capability to Move – Somatic Grasping of Househopping.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 20 (6): 612–628.

Polanyi, M.1962.“Tacit Knowing: Its Bearing on Some Problems of Philosophy.” Reviews of Modern Physics 34 (4): 601–616.

Polanyi, M.1969.“The Logic of Tacit Inference.” In: Knowing and Being. Essays by Michael Polanyi, edited by M. Green, 138–158. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, Routledge & Kegan Paul.

Polanyi, M.2002. Personal Knowledge-Towards a Post-Critical Philosophy. London: Routledge.

Renshaw, I., and J.-Y. Chow.2019.“Constraint-Led Approach to Sport and Physical Education Pedagogy.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 24 (2): 103–116.

Roberts, W. M., D. J. Newcombe, and K. Davids.2019.“Application of a Constraints-Led Approach to Pedagogy in Schools: Embarking on a Journey to Nurture Physical Literacy in Primary Physical Education.” Physical Education and Sport Pedagogy 24 (2): 162–175.

Rönnqvist, M., H. Larsson, G. Nyberg, and D. Barker.2019.“Approaching Movement Learning: Understanding Learners’ Sense-Making in Movement Learning.” Curriculum Studies in Physical Education and Health. Ahead-of-print, doi:10.1080/25742981.2019.1601499.

Ryle, G.2009. The Concept of Mind. New York: Routledge.

Spradley, J. P.1979. The Ethnographic Interview. New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston.

Steel, K., B. Harris, D. Baxter, and M. King.2013.“Skill Acquisition Specialists, Coaches and Athletes: The Current State of Play?” Journal of Sport Behaviour 36 (3): 291–305.

Stolz, S. 2013. “The Philosophy of G Ryle and its Signiﬁcance for Physical Education: Some Thoughts and Reﬂections.” European Physical Education Review 19 (3): 381–396.

Swedish Research Council.2017. Good Research Practice. Stockholm.

Thorburn, M., and S. Stolz. 2017. “Embodied Learning and School-Based Physical Culture: Implications for Professionalism and Practice in Physical Education.” Sport, Education and Society 22 (6): 721–731.

Tidén, A., K. Redelius, and S. Lundvall.2017.“The Social Construction of Ability in Movement Assessment Tools.” Sport, Education and Society 22 (6): 697–709.